Random
Source Code
Random
1. A form of Government that goes forth in the name of the people, but is truly an oligarchy. Meaning the few control the many, and the many are slaves to the state who happen to be the few
2. Believes in collective ownership, democratic control of the material means of production by the workers and the people.
3. No respect for the individual or the private sectors rights. Often associated with entitlement programs, and having everything under government control. Wishes for there to be no existence of private capital or wealth, and thus everything is owned by the state.
4. Teach's the end results justify the means, even at the cost of human life. Of coarse this is never said but is always seen.
5. A sick belief that on the surface appears friendly, but in the end has caused millions of people their lives, and then morphs into a communist or totalitarian state.
6. Mob rule, where the majority always out weighs the rights of the individual, and thus leaves no room for debate. The opposing views are not considered, and the individual is crushed.
History shows socialism to be filled with terrible acts by men like Hitler, Chairmen Mao, Mussolini, and Lenin.
The falling political realms of England
President Obama, and his companions views and desired policies to be implemented.
79👍 118👎
1. An early-19th century fairy-tale that describes a society where government is able to mobilize various proportions of the economy to work as efficiently motivated by the mystical concept entitled the "public good" as they work in the real world motivated by the evolutionary principle of personal gain. In later versions, various merits and reprimands attempt to bridge the gap, but turn out to cost more than they help as they do not address the gap at the government level.
2. A form of feudalism where bureaucracies and/or cartels providing certain services deemed "essential" receive economic favoritism rather than aristocrats or clergy, reinforced by the faith that they are "irreplaceable”.
3. A form of collectivism where government decides what is to be collectively produced/ distributed. Can occur in liberal democracy, in which case the ineffectiveness of motivation leads to shortages, and the takeover of too many markets can produce complete economic collapse, which is occurring in most of the Western world. Can occur in brutal totalitarianism, in which the shortages are temporarily offset by finding a scapegoat demographic stigmatized as not carrying its weight and forced into slave labor to produce but not consume. Examples are Eugenic Socialism in which scapegoats are chosen based on ethnicity (i.e. Hitler's Germany) and Class Socialism in which they are accused of Capitalist tendencies for opposition to the system (i.e. Stalin's USSR, Mao's China).
Money isn't worth anything because everyone is paid the same no matter what they do and whether or not they work at all. Nothing is produced so there is nothing to buy. Why work?
Because you have faith in Socialism.
78👍 117👎
1. An economic system characterized by public ownership of the means of production.
2. (USA) Anything you don’t like, especially when done by the government.
“You want to survive a broken arm and not go into crippling medical debt? That’s socialism! You’re treading on my freedom!”
6👍 9👎
It's essentialy watered down Communism (but only a tiny bit), however Communist/Socialist advocates would have you believe otherwise.
The basic idea behind Socialism is zero respect for people. Socialists don't care for people and that's why the political system that they advocate doesn't either.
That means no liberty for you!
Q: Why are those people are always treating people like shit?
A: Because they are Socialists!
Take the 'social' out of Socialism, it's really ANTI-SOCIAL
75👍 116👎
A political and ecomonic ideology that moves away from the foolish concept of wealth. It has numerous forms, all left wing.
If you oppose socialism, you are for antisocialism, which makes you antisocial. Take that, greedy capitalists.
60👍 93👎
A socialist, in democratic, capitalistic, western countries, is a person who was, more often than not, raised in a white, middle class family and adopts a socialistic political world view to vent the guilt felt by such an upbringing. This cathartic measure is a form of psychological flagellation and an attempt to identify with poorer people and countries. The socialist realizes that the hand they were dealt was not contingent on there being "special" but lucky.
The socialist then projects their insecurity's on the great father figure - the USA. In doing so they concentrate there hatred of America by villainizing and inventing "facts" and "events" while ignoring real problems outside of there scope of focus, revealing there motives to be far from objective.
The socialist will spend endless time, money and effort protesting tedious trivialities about the USA, such as trade laws or political meetings, and conveniently ignore tragedies occurring as they protest, such as massacres in Africa promoted by Muslims and Despots, or vicious sectarian rivalries across the Middle East. The socialist ignores these nasty facts about the world because they were not, in some way, connected to the USA.
The lack of any real connection to their “pet issues” and the USA does not always stop their wonderfully specious logic from drawing a connection. This also extends their putting a spin on historical events, or a complete revision of history itself. A good example of the above is the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, now, it appears, that this was an act of terrorism and imperialism, rather than an ugly act of a very ugly war.
An example of the act of being born to a middle class family and than dedicating ones life to socialism - Zack de la Rocha and Che Guevara
79👍 126👎